A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf - Conference Oct. 2013

user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:0eb6a67fdba96ffa5ecc37c7898c5f1e' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 27.

user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>steve benson Oct 2013</p>\n<p>I was walking into the office this morning and passed a co-worker on the sidewalk--a lapsed Mormon who hasn\'t been a believer for years. As we greeted each other, he asked, \"Did you watch Conference?\"</p>\n<p>I smiled and replied, \"No. I don\'t do that anymore.\"</p>\n<p>He responded with his own smile, \"Uchtdorf said the leaders of the Church have made mistakes and that that doesn\'t mean people who criticize them have sinned.\"</p>\n<p>He added with a broad grin, \"It\'s a start.\"</p>\n<p>As we passed each other, he turned and, still smiling, called back to me, \"He also said to doubt your doubts, not your faith.\"</p>\n<p>I replied, \"He\'s got it backwards. You should doubt your faith before you start doubting your doubts.\"</p>\n<p>For the record, here\'s the stuff from Uchtdope that ny friend was referring to:</p>\n<p>\"It is wrong to assume that Mormons who leave the faith \'have been offended or lazy or sinful,\' a top leader told members Saturday during the LDS Church’s 183rd Semiannual General Conference.</p>\n<p>\"\'It is not that simple,\' said Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the LDS Church’s governing First Presidency.</p>\n<p>\"Some struggle with \'unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past,\' Uchtdorf explained. \'We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events--there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.\"</p>\n<p>\"\'To be perfectly frank,\' Uchtdorf said, \'there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.\'\"</p>\n<p>\" . . . Uchtdorf . . . said wrestling with serious or sensitive questions about the faith is normal. But he said, \'Please first doubt your doubts, before you doubt your faith.\' Speaking to those who have left the Church, he invited them back in, saying there is always room for them.\"</p>\n<p>(\"Uchtdorf Urges Questioning Mormons to Return,\" by Peggy Fletcher |Stack, \"The Salt Lake Tribune,\" 5 October 2013, at: <a href=\"http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56962132-78/lds-church-conference-women.html.csp;\" title=\"http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56962132-78/lds-church-conference-women.html.csp;\">http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56962132-78/lds-church-conference-wome...</a> and \"Mormon Women\'s Group Shut Out of All-Male Meeting,\" by \"Associated Press,\" published in \"USA Today,\" 5 October 2013, at: <a href=\"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/05/mormon-womens-group-shut-out-of-all-male-meeting/2929751/\" title=\"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/05/mormon-womens-group-shut-out-of-all-male-meeting/2929751/\">http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/05/mormon-womens-group...</a>)<br />\n_____</p>\n<p>I think that the Goons in the Blue Suits running Mormon, Inc. are running scared. In fact, I think it\'s possible that in their own stumblebum sort of way, they\'re trying to mimick the new Catholic Pope Francis\' refreshing openness, in a desperate effort to staunch Mormonism\'s membership hemorraghing and rising inactivity in the ranks. It must be tough trying to pull that off since faking sincerity doesn\'t come easy to the GAs. But they\'d better do something quick if they want to keep Mormonism from going the way of the Dodo bird.</p>\n<p>At least Pope Frank has been going around being, well, frank, basically telling Church leaders and members alike to chill out. He\'s openly admitted that the Catholic Church and its administrators have made some pretty serious mistakes; that it\'s counter-productive to haggle over doctrinal details with the locals and that estranged members of the Catholic flock who don\'t abide by Church rules but who are good people should be accepted.</p>\n<p>Here are some of Pope Frank\'s latest \"bombshell\" quotes:</p>\n<p>--\"Who am I to judge a gay person?\"</p>\n<p>--\"And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being.\"</p>\n<p>--“The Church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.\"</p>\n<p>--“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.\"</p>\n<p>--“It hurts me when I see a priest or nun with the latest-model car. You can’t do this. A car is necessary to do a lot of work but, please, choose a more humble one. If you like the fancy one, just think about how many children are dying of hunger in the world.\"</p>\n<p>--\"You know what I think about this? Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers. The court is the leprosy of the papacy.\"</p>\n<p>--“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.\"</p>\n<p>--\"How I would like a Church that is poor and for the poor.\"</p>\n<p>--\"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.\"</p>\n<p>(\"Pope Francis\' Most Controversial Quotes,\" in \"Huffington Post,\" 7 October 2013, at: <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/06/pope-francis-most-controversial-quotes_n_4032665.html?ir=Religion\" title=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/06/pope-francis-most-controversial-quotes_n_4032665.html?ir=Religion\">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/06/pope-francis-most-controversial...</a>)<br />\n_____</p>\n<p>Don\'t get me wrong. As a non-believer and secular humanist/atheist, I think the Catholic and Mormon Churches are light-years from becoming cool and are still Stone-Age primitive in a lot of ways. But I think that the Catholic Frank is less phony than the Mormon Tom.</p>\n<p>Yo, to you geriatric goofs running your crumbling Mormon Cult: You\'re damn right you\'ve made plenty of boneheaded moves over the years--and you\'re still making them. You\'d better start following the Pope before it\'s too late.</p>\n<p>To quote my lapsed-Mormon friend, \"It\'s a start.\"</p>\n<hr />\nBite Me<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ..<br />\n.<br />\nWith all due respect, I think any ground that Uchtdorf gained was then lost by him in the Priesthood Session. If you listen carefully to his words, he says that those who leave do so because they\'ve sinned or too lazy to choose the good parts that require work. If they don\'t come back, it is because they are too embarrassed. He seems to contradict his earlier statements (below) as to why people leave...<br />\n_______________\n<p>\"It is wrong to assume that Mormons who leave the faith \'have been offended or lazy or sinful,\' a top leader told members Saturday during the LDS Church’s 183rd Semiannual General Conference.</p>\n<p>\"\'It is not that simple,\' said Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the LDS Church’s governing First Presidency.<br />\n_______________</p>\n<p>Maybe I\'m misinterpreting what he is saying because he does it in a round about way using a story, but I don\'t think so.</p>\n<hr />\nsteve benson<br />\nIt\'s slippery, calculated and disingenuous. He\'s appearing to be tolerant-<br />\n. . . when, in reality, he ain\'t--plus, just as bad, Uchtdorf is refusing, in speaking for the Mormon Church, to acknowledge present malpractice committed by the LDS Church in the form of continued intellectual and historical dishonesty; unequal treatment of women; theological condemnation of gays; scriptural/doctrinal racism against Blacks and Native peoples; authoritarian demands for obedience to Church leadership; and overt materialism disguised as service.\n<p>Uchtdorf talks a good game but he\'s too slick \'n slimey to be trusted--and the same goes for the Mormon Church he rode in on.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Brother Of Jerry<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...<br />\nWe should all email copies of Uchtdorf\'s talk to Dallin Oaks. He still has no problem at all judging homosexuals. Plus he has that stick so far up his butt it has caused permanent brain damage.</p>\n<p>I guess Uchtdorf has been assigned to be the one who looks like he gives a damn about the members. Good luck with that, because the other 14 are still in the background of the picture.</p>\n<hr />\nthingsithink<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdork to me at work today ...<br />\n\"But I think that the Catholic Frank is less phony than the Mormon Tom.\"\n<p>Drink it up christians, catholics, religionists of any sort and non-athiests. This is a good as it gets coming from Mr. Benson. :)</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Nightingale<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...<br />\nthingsithink Wrote:<br />\n\"This is a good as it gets coming from Mr. Benson.\"</p>\n<p>This was my laugh of the day! Good one.</p>\n<p>But actually, Steve Benson wrote an outline of Christian belief a while back that was better than most I\'ve heard or read from Christian sources. I thought after reading it that no-one could accuse Steve of not endorsing Christian beliefs, or not being qualified to criticize them, because he doesn\'t understand them. I meant to keep that post but got sidetracked and now it is lost in the mists of RfM time.</p>\n<p>As for the Pope, he is refreshingly Frank (lol). I did hope he would make some doctrinal changes and really shake things up but a poster here a while ago said that a pope can\'t change doctrine, if I understood, and remember, correctly. This is disappointing.</p>\n<p>I feel relieved with his approach to poverty and hope it makes a difference. What is unbelieveable to me is that it takes a long shot guy to attain the papacy to shell out a few home truths, like don\'t be spending a lot of money unnecessarily, don\'t be ostentatious, the church shouldn\'t be so opulent, children - and others - are hungry today.</p>\n<p>Priests and nuns in cadillacs. Pope on the bus. Sheesh.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>releve<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...<br />\nIt will never be more than a start, if they admit that the BOM is not the most true book ever written, or that JS didn\'t actually see God, it is all over. They can\'t just be another Christian Church when the premise on which they exist is that all Christian Churches are wrong.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Don Bagley<br />\nVery nice, Steve, your post has humanist warmth<br />\nMy take is that \"doubt your doubt\" is a double negative. Turn it around and it sounds moronic, \"believe your belief.\"</p>\n<hr />\nsteve benson<br />\nI like what appears to be his honest, direct and in some cases humane ...<br />\n... and tolerant approach.\n<p>That said, Pope Frank is still out to lunch in believing the Catholic Church to be a divinely-sanctioned bastion of ultimate male leadership; plus, he\'s out of touch in still insisting that abortion and homosexuality are sins (although he appears not to be too eager to fight about it).</p>\n<p>Frank\'s got a long way to go but he seems more genuine, agreeable, likeable and open to change than Tom and his band of malevolent Mormon mobsters.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Checker of minor facts<br />\nRe: It\'s slippery, calculated and disingenuous. He\'s appearing to be tolerant-<br />\n&gt;&gt;Uchtdork talks a good game but he\'s too slick \'n slimey to be trusted--and the same goes for the Mormon Church he rode in on.&lt;&lt;</p>\n<p>Yes! This is my feeling too. To all, beware!</p>\n<hr />\nmunchybotaz<br />\nNot really getting why the line about mistakes is a big deal<br />\nwhen it\'s just minimizing and he didn\'t mean anyone who\'s still alive. If he admitted they\'ve been lying and stealing all these years and are still doing it, that would be something.\n<p>Also, Flukesnort stole the line about doubts from an early 20th-century faith healer named F.F. Bosworth.</p>\n<hr />\nNightingale<br />\nRe: Not really getting why the line about mistakes is a big deal<br />\nmunchybotaz Wrote:<br />\n-------------------------------------------------------<br />\n&gt; when it\'s just minimizing and he didn\'t mean<br />\n&gt; anyone who\'s still alive. If he admitted they\'ve<br />\n&gt; been lying and stealing all these years and are<br />\n&gt; still doing it, that would be something.\n<p>I think so too. They have often said that they\'re all only human and subject to flaws, in answer to criticisms about leaders, or that\'s my understanding of how they deflect concerns about changes, omissions and failures. And in regard to members, they infamously and repeatedly recite their grating line that the church is perfect but the members are not. So he used the word \'mistakes\' - maybe that\'s the difference?</p>\n<p>&gt; Also, Flukesnort stole the line about doubts from<br />\n&gt; an early 20th-century faith healer named F.F.<br />\n&gt; Bosworth.</p>\n<p>Yes, I saw this in another thread. The guy is busted! Plagairism - again! Defined in Wiki as \"purloining and publication\" of another\'s \"language, thoughts, ideas or expressions\". Journalist Fareed Zakaria was recently stood down for a time from his work at CNN and TIME for inadvertently using another\'s words, and his fault was to a much lesser degree, in my view. Even two or three words taken from another and used without attribution can be considered plagiarism, in our time. Using an entire expression such as in this case with Uchtdorf is quite shocking - and stupid. How do they think they will _not_ be caught out as purloiners of the first order?</p>\n<hr />\n<p>transylvania<br />\nRe: Not really getting why the line about mistakes is a big deal<br />\nNice catch. Researched it and you are correct.</p>\n<p>F F Bosworth: \"Believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts.\"</p>\n<p>(<a href=\"http://www.quotes.net/quote/11110\" title=\"http://www.quotes.net/quote/11110\">http://www.quotes.net/quote/11110</a>)</p>\n<hr />\nmunchybotaz<br />\nIt\'s fitting, I think, in that Bosworth was also a con man<br />\nand apparently a better one than Peter F. Pukeshorts.\n<p><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7cvjOmJvcM&amp;feature=youtube_gdata_player\" title=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7cvjOmJvcM&amp;feature=youtube_gdata_player\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7cvjOmJvcM&amp;feature=youtube_gdata_player</a></p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.quotes.net/quote/11110\" title=\"http://www.quotes.net/quote/11110\">http://www.quotes.net/quote/11110</a></p>\n<hr />\nNightingale<br />\nI agree. Very. Nice. Catch.&nbsp;\n<hr />\n<p>munchybotaz<br />\nI have to give credit to birthgoddess<br />\nwho posted elsewhere that a similar quote was attributed to the actor Chace Crawford. That\'s what got me googling. Anyway, a \"Gossip Girl\" guy also said it before Crookfork did. :)</p>\n<hr />\nNightingale<br />\nRe: I have to give credit to birthgoddess<br />\nMaybe they will give attribution in the written version of the talk. :)\n<p>Words are crucial. Words are vital. Words should be treated with respect.</p>\n<p>I remember my trying-to-be-\"TBM\" days when I freaked out because they changed the wording in my PB. If it came from God\'s lips to the patriarch\'s ears, I asked when I later received my written copy, how come the patriarch\'s wife changed the wording substantially when she transcribed the recording, instead of just typing the words her husband had used while giving me the blessing. The RM new member class teachers, the missionaries who had been present at the PB, and the patriarch, who was questioned by one of the new member class teachers, all reacted as if I was completely round the bend when I got upset and was querying it - like they were used to PBs needing to be edited or like they thought that editing was no big deal - so once again, I was the source of the problem, not them for making promises and claims they could not fulfil.</p>\n<p>That is one of the primary sources of the clashes between Mormons and ex-members and other non-Mormons - Mormon leaders and hence members make false claims, then blame questioners for not maintaining the illusion of The Naked Emperor. Even when you sense or see or feel that there\'s an issue and even if it\'s obvious to the naked eye, you\'re supposed to act like \"all is well in Zion\", even if everybody knows it is not and know that you all know that it is not.</p>\n<p>If they didn\'t tell me in the first place that a PB was a direct message from God, especially for me, I wouldn\'t have been so shocked and disappointed that they edited the thing. Just their bad luck that I have a good ear for language, so could remember in detail what the patriarch had \"dictated\" as he received NG\'s big-deal message from the Lips of God Himself, and plus I do transcription work, so know all about editing dictation, for grammar and for meaning. The patriarch\'s wife edited for MEANING. Why would that be necessary if the source of the message was divine? And the patriarch stumbled over a well known adage that was used in my PB, and just could not get the wording right (he had a senior moment right in the middle of my PB, lol) which was amazingly cleared up in the final typed version. I know now that I was beyond gullible for believing in such \"magic\" as a PB being direct from God, but at the time I did believe. My bad. So blame me for being literal - that when they made a claim I took it to heart. And the patriarch included my favourite Mormon scripture in my PB, a very faith-promoting move. One of the missionaries with me at the time of my PB, who I had become very friendly with (just friends) said he \"nearly fell out of my chair\" when the patriarch mouthed those words (because \"my\" mish knew my fave scripture - \"Men are that they might have joy\"). Me too with the falling out of my chair bit. Of all my Mormon moments, that was the one that caused me to truly believe that I was doing the right thing, in the right place, by having joined the Mormon Church, despite misgivings and warnings and judgements from my Christian friends who didn\'t consider Mormonism to be Christian (as we know). I thought the inclusion of that scripture was an extra special message from God just for me. What a dope.</p>\n<p>I later realized that one of the RM new member class teachers who was a family friend of the patriarch\'s had whispered in the patriarch\'s ear, as he too knew my favourite scripture - we had talked about it in new member classes, where I was the only member and two RMs, brothers (and friends with the patriarch) were the teachers. I\'m positive now that that is what happened. Why can\'t they just admit that the patriarch gathers info about the new member before he gives the PB? Why pretend it\'s all divine inspiration? That is a Big Fat LIE. I threw my PB under my bed one day. As far as I know, that is where it still moulders. To dust it shall return, and all that.</p>\n<p>An exmo friend said that maybe they didn\'t LIE about it. Or didn\'t consider what they did a lie. That helped me - to think it wasn\'t a lie. Because that episode hurt me deeply. It would be good to think it was just SOP or one of those FUBAR things, not a deliberate deception. Who will ever know for sure?</p>\n<p>In the case of Uchtdorf, all he had to do was preface his remark with an \"it has been said that...\", not even giving direct attribution but just indicating that his statement wasn\'t of his own creation. Maybe he didn\'t even know, if he wasn\'t the author of his own talk. But to use those words that are clearly lifted in their entirety from another known source and to have TBM listeners swooning over his wisdom and the inspiration they felt from listening to his talk is a word crime of the first order.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, some members will be \"inspired\" now for another six months to keep on keeping on in the Mormon way of callings, meetings, childbearing, tithing, til they limp exhausted into yet another GC, longing for another divine message to get them infused with excitement and energy for yet another six months of hard slog in the world of Mormonism.</p>\n<p>We get roundly criticized for being critical of the Mormon Church. Prophets are only human, leaders and members make mistakes, they (finally) admit, seeking to offset our critiques. But it\'s THEY who make the unsupportable claims and THEY who criticize members and non-members alike for questioning why their claims don\'t come true.</p>\n<p>Just don\'t say the talks are \"inspired\" or the GAs or prophets or patriarchs are \"speaking for God\" or that (some of) the articles in the Ensign are \"scripture\" and then they wouldn\'t be misleading people.</p>\n<p>Simple enough, you\'d think.</p>\n<p>(OK, I am going to quit editing this thing now. It\'s way past bedtime for all good little girls and boys - as somebody somewhere once said - lol).</p>\n<hr />\n<p>imaworkinonit<br />\nI\'d be willing to bet every exmo with TMB works got some variation of<br />\n\"Did you watch conference?\" comment with their stupid, silly grin on their faces. When are TBMS going to realize that we have as much interest in what their leaders have to say as they have in what the Jehovah Witnesses have to say?</p>\n<hr />\nbadseed<br />\nIt\'s a spin on the ol favorite....<br />\nGood cop, 14 bad cops. Doesn\'t quite have the same effect though huh?.\n<p>Somewhere in Uchtdorf\'s comments is always the message that all the sugar coating and weak concessions are meant to mask. In this case its \"doubt your doubts, not your faith.\" Ridiculous. In that one statement he tips his hand. His comments are an improvement but he really doesn\'t get how messed up the LDS position is. I mean, in his position, how could he?</p>\n<hr />\nmunchybotaz<br />\nI can relate<br />\nI\'d have been \'round the bend myself, if I\'d had a PB and it was edited for meaning.\n<p>I\'m a word person--one who, until recently, had a career that involved a lot of writing, where you can get sued if someone else thinks you\'ve ripped off their ideas or their words. It\'s called intellectual property.</p>\n<p>Goofstork\'s career isn\'t that different, in my mind. Never mind that his words are supposed to come from God; he makes money off of them, and they need to be his. Or else credited to the source.</p>\n<p>Bosworth put his words in a book, too, phrased even more closely to the way Snoopshark repeated them:</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://books.google.com/books?id=6xk_GCY_V0gC&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=%22christ+the+healer%22+%22doubt++your+doubts%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EcCTPsDTg6&amp;sig=bpJiY_gxQ33XO_WQ3SjTvEuAwXY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=pv5TUrmCMJOAqwHSzIDADw&amp;ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22christ%20the%20healer%22%20%22doubt%20%20your%20doubts%22&amp;f=false\" title=\"http://books.google.com/books?id=6xk_GCY_V0gC&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=%22christ+the+healer%22+%22doubt++your+doubts%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EcCTPsDTg6&amp;sig=bpJiY_gxQ33XO_WQ3SjTvEuAwXY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=pv5TUrmCMJOAqwHSzIDADw&amp;ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22christ%20the%20healer%22%20%22doubt%20%20your%20doubts%22&amp;f=false\">http://books.google.com/books?id=6xk_GCY_V0gC&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=%22chr...</a></p>\n<p>Whoever\'s still making money off of this book should sue Peter Poopsnort and his employer for copyright infringement. They probably wouldn\'t succeed, but I\'d like to see them try anyway.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>visiting<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...<br />\n--\"He also said to doubt your doubts, not your faith.\"</p>\n<p>Translation: Doubt yourself, not your leaders.</p>\n<hr />\nMakurosu<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...<br />\nOf course there\'s \"always room for them.\" All tithing money is green.\n<hr />\nquinlansolo<br />\nRe: Uchtdork? I didn\'t think you spoke German Steve....<br />\nYou do well, I see....<br />\nMan...When are you going to quit driving masses away from Lord\'s Church? I think your parents still hold that small hope that you might repent..........<br />\nCatholic Pope is a realist...Deep down he realizes this Magic business cannot hold water.<br />\nServes them right....Assholes, they cannot repay damage caused for 2 thousand years.\n<hr />\nbreedumyung<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...<br />\nI\'ll go back to church when the GAs take off those silly blue suits and wear robes or something.\n<p>I just could never equate spirituality with a suit and tie...</p>\n<hr />\n<p>montanaexmo<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdork to me at work today ...<br />\nA comment on the importance of words. One of the remarkable things about the appearance of the net and then RfM is the way we get to thoughtfully and carefully work over with each other the meaning of words used by tscc and its leaders. Thank you Steve, nightingale, munchybotaz and all of the rest of you for continuing to post. Your insights and entertainment value are a big part of what keeps me reading this board. For those of us who have spent an entire career writing and dealing with the language, the words used by the tscc leadership are critical. That they would openly plagiarize is disgusting, though not surprising given that tscc is founded on a couple of fictional works that they try to pass off as authentic translations by a pedophile. Their speech writers need to be punished by being required to attend a semester long class at the U of U on ethics in writing and they need to learn how to proof read and question when something is obviously too catchy to be the original work of some employee at COB. Uchdorf: if you are reading this shame on you. You are a really awful example of honesty and integrity. I would have expected more from a man of god.</p>\n<p>One final thought as I sit here sipping my delicious \"Jack Mormon\" brand of coffee and viewing this morning\'s dose of RfM: I love the way the posters on RfM can take a name or a word and work it over. The variations of Uchdorf\'s name are seriously wicked, good entertainment.</p>\n<hr />\nNormaRae<br />\nWhat I think is funny....<br />\n...is just the whole \"doubt your doubts\" thing. Don\'t they realize that many of us are here BECAUSE we doubted our doubts?\n<p>When I first read about the different version of the first vision, I highly doubted it. I figured it was just someone taking things out of context or making stuff up. BUT, because I doubted, I wanted someone to tell me there was no substance to it. THAT is when I started looking at the apologetics. What did I find? No one said it was made up, they just gave extremely lame \"explanations\" for it.</p>\n<p>The more I read things (because I was doubting my doubts), the more I started doubting my faith.</p>\n<p>\"Joseph really told the same story, but emphasized different parts depending on his audience.\" Um, no he didn\'t.</p>\n<p>\"The versions don\'t contradict each other, they compliment each other.\" Excuse me? They totally contradict each other.</p>\n<p>And of course, the deeper you get into the web, the more links you start clicking on. Priesthood restoration, Book of Mormon historocity, Kinderhook plates, Book of Abraham, Masonic ripoff of the temple ceremony, Kirtland banking scandal, polygamy/polyandry, the so-called witnesses to the BOM, everything you wanted to doubt is trumped by facts.</p>\n<p>Yeah, go ahead Udork. Tell people to doubt their doubts. Send doubting people to the apologetic sites. It will just build the RFM ranks of people like us who went there and finally said, \"Really? That\'s the best you got? Damn. It IS a fraud.\"</p>\n<hr />\nNo Mo<br />\nHighly ironic Uchtdorg quoting fellow religious fraud....<br />\n....who changed his religion with the wind.\n<p><a href=\"http://www.quotes.net/authors/F.%20F.%20Bosworth\" title=\"http://www.quotes.net/authors/F.%20F.%20Bosworth\">http://www.quotes.net/authors/F.%20F.%20Bosworth</a></p>\n<p>\"Believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts.\"</p>\n<hr />\ndeconverted2010<br />\nRe: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdork to me at work today ...<br />\nI think Uchtdorf has been reading RfM. He says:\n<p>\"It is wrong to assume that Mormons who leave the faith \'have been offended or lazy or sinful,\'</p>\n<p>But I think he is more dangerously than the other 14. He gives hope, but a false hope. He adds:</p>\n<p>\'Please first doubt your doubts, before you doubt your faith.\'</p>\n<p>I wish for him to be kicked out of the FP when the next suit takes office.</p>\n<p>I dislike him in the same I used to dislike GBH. You know, like in wolves in sheep\'s clothes.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>\"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org\"</p>\n', created = 1542668212, expire = 1542754612, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:0eb6a67fdba96ffa5ecc37c7898c5f1e' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 112.

I was walking into the office this morning and passed a co-worker on the sidewalk--a lapsed Mormon who hasn't been a believer for years. As we greeted each other, he asked, "Did you watch Conference?"

I smiled and replied, "No. I don't do that anymore."

He responded with his own smile, "Uchtdorf said the leaders of the Church have made mistakes and that that doesn't mean people who criticize them have sinned."

He added with a broad grin, "It's a start."

As we passed each other, he turned and, still smiling, called back to me, "He also said to doubt your doubts, not your faith."

I replied, "He's got it backwards. You should doubt your faith before you start doubting your doubts."

For the record, here's the stuff from Uchtdope that ny friend was referring to:

"It is wrong to assume that Mormons who leave the faith 'have been offended or lazy or sinful,' a top leader told members Saturday during the LDS Church’s 183rd Semiannual General Conference.

"'It is not that simple,' said Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the LDS Church’s governing First Presidency.

"Some struggle with 'unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past,' Uchtdorf explained. 'We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events--there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question."

"'To be perfectly frank,' Uchtdorf said, 'there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.'"

" . . . Uchtdorf . . . said wrestling with serious or sensitive questions about the faith is normal. But he said, 'Please first doubt your doubts, before you doubt your faith.' Speaking to those who have left the Church, he invited them back in, saying there is always room for them."

I think that the Goons in the Blue Suits running Mormon, Inc. are running scared. In fact, I think it's possible that in their own stumblebum sort of way, they're trying to mimick the new Catholic Pope Francis' refreshing openness, in a desperate effort to staunch Mormonism's membership hemorraghing and rising inactivity in the ranks. It must be tough trying to pull that off since faking sincerity doesn't come easy to the GAs. But they'd better do something quick if they want to keep Mormonism from going the way of the Dodo bird.

At least Pope Frank has been going around being, well, frank, basically telling Church leaders and members alike to chill out. He's openly admitted that the Catholic Church and its administrators have made some pretty serious mistakes; that it's counter-productive to haggle over doctrinal details with the locals and that estranged members of the Catholic flock who don't abide by Church rules but who are good people should be accepted.

Here are some of Pope Frank's latest "bombshell" quotes:

--"Who am I to judge a gay person?"

--"And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being."

--“The Church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you."

--“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time."

--“It hurts me when I see a priest or nun with the latest-model car. You can’t do this. A car is necessary to do a lot of work but, please, choose a more humble one. If you like the fancy one, just think about how many children are dying of hunger in the world."

--"You know what I think about this? Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers. The court is the leprosy of the papacy."

--“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person."

--"How I would like a Church that is poor and for the poor."

--"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us."

Don't get me wrong. As a non-believer and secular humanist/atheist, I think the Catholic and Mormon Churches are light-years from becoming cool and are still Stone-Age primitive in a lot of ways. But I think that the Catholic Frank is less phony than the Mormon Tom.

Yo, to you geriatric goofs running your crumbling Mormon Cult: You're damn right you've made plenty of boneheaded moves over the years--and you're still making them. You'd better start following the Pope before it's too late.

To quote my lapsed-Mormon friend, "It's a start."

Bite Me
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ..
.
With all due respect, I think any ground that Uchtdorf gained was then lost by him in the Priesthood Session. If you listen carefully to his words, he says that those who leave do so because they've sinned or too lazy to choose the good parts that require work. If they don't come back, it is because they are too embarrassed. He seems to contradict his earlier statements (below) as to why people leave...
_______________

"It is wrong to assume that Mormons who leave the faith 'have been offended or lazy or sinful,' a top leader told members Saturday during the LDS Church’s 183rd Semiannual General Conference.

"'It is not that simple,' said Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the LDS Church’s governing First Presidency.
_______________

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what he is saying because he does it in a round about way using a story, but I don't think so.

steve benson
It's slippery, calculated and disingenuous. He's appearing to be tolerant-
. . . when, in reality, he ain't--plus, just as bad, Uchtdorf is refusing, in speaking for the Mormon Church, to acknowledge present malpractice committed by the LDS Church in the form of continued intellectual and historical dishonesty; unequal treatment of women; theological condemnation of gays; scriptural/doctrinal racism against Blacks and Native peoples; authoritarian demands for obedience to Church leadership; and overt materialism disguised as service.

Uchtdorf talks a good game but he's too slick 'n slimey to be trusted--and the same goes for the Mormon Church he rode in on.

Brother Of Jerry
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...
We should all email copies of Uchtdorf's talk to Dallin Oaks. He still has no problem at all judging homosexuals. Plus he has that stick so far up his butt it has caused permanent brain damage.

I guess Uchtdorf has been assigned to be the one who looks like he gives a damn about the members. Good luck with that, because the other 14 are still in the background of the picture.

thingsithink
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdork to me at work today ...
"But I think that the Catholic Frank is less phony than the Mormon Tom."

Drink it up christians, catholics, religionists of any sort and non-athiests. This is a good as it gets coming from Mr. Benson. :)

Nightingale
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...
thingsithink Wrote:
"This is a good as it gets coming from Mr. Benson."

This was my laugh of the day! Good one.

But actually, Steve Benson wrote an outline of Christian belief a while back that was better than most I've heard or read from Christian sources. I thought after reading it that no-one could accuse Steve of not endorsing Christian beliefs, or not being qualified to criticize them, because he doesn't understand them. I meant to keep that post but got sidetracked and now it is lost in the mists of RfM time.

As for the Pope, he is refreshingly Frank (lol). I did hope he would make some doctrinal changes and really shake things up but a poster here a while ago said that a pope can't change doctrine, if I understood, and remember, correctly. This is disappointing.

I feel relieved with his approach to poverty and hope it makes a difference. What is unbelieveable to me is that it takes a long shot guy to attain the papacy to shell out a few home truths, like don't be spending a lot of money unnecessarily, don't be ostentatious, the church shouldn't be so opulent, children - and others - are hungry today.

Priests and nuns in cadillacs. Pope on the bus. Sheesh.

releve
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...
It will never be more than a start, if they admit that the BOM is not the most true book ever written, or that JS didn't actually see God, it is all over. They can't just be another Christian Church when the premise on which they exist is that all Christian Churches are wrong.

Don Bagley
Very nice, Steve, your post has humanist warmth
My take is that "doubt your doubt" is a double negative. Turn it around and it sounds moronic, "believe your belief."

steve benson
I like what appears to be his honest, direct and in some cases humane ...
... and tolerant approach.

That said, Pope Frank is still out to lunch in believing the Catholic Church to be a divinely-sanctioned bastion of ultimate male leadership; plus, he's out of touch in still insisting that abortion and homosexuality are sins (although he appears not to be too eager to fight about it).

Frank's got a long way to go but he seems more genuine, agreeable, likeable and open to change than Tom and his band of malevolent Mormon mobsters.

Checker of minor facts
Re: It's slippery, calculated and disingenuous. He's appearing to be tolerant-
>>Uchtdork talks a good game but he's too slick 'n slimey to be trusted--and the same goes for the Mormon Church he rode in on.<<

Yes! This is my feeling too. To all, beware!

munchybotaz
Not really getting why the line about mistakes is a big deal
when it's just minimizing and he didn't mean anyone who's still alive. If he admitted they've been lying and stealing all these years and are still doing it, that would be something.

Also, Flukesnort stole the line about doubts from an early 20th-century faith healer named F.F. Bosworth.

Nightingale
Re: Not really getting why the line about mistakes is a big deal
munchybotaz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when it's just minimizing and he didn't mean
> anyone who's still alive. If he admitted they've
> been lying and stealing all these years and are
> still doing it, that would be something.

I think so too. They have often said that they're all only human and subject to flaws, in answer to criticisms about leaders, or that's my understanding of how they deflect concerns about changes, omissions and failures. And in regard to members, they infamously and repeatedly recite their grating line that the church is perfect but the members are not. So he used the word 'mistakes' - maybe that's the difference?

> Also, Flukesnort stole the line about doubts from
> an early 20th-century faith healer named F.F.
> Bosworth.

Yes, I saw this in another thread. The guy is busted! Plagairism - again! Defined in Wiki as "purloining and publication" of another's "language, thoughts, ideas or expressions". Journalist Fareed Zakaria was recently stood down for a time from his work at CNN and TIME for inadvertently using another's words, and his fault was to a much lesser degree, in my view. Even two or three words taken from another and used without attribution can be considered plagiarism, in our time. Using an entire expression such as in this case with Uchtdorf is quite shocking - and stupid. How do they think they will _not_ be caught out as purloiners of the first order?

transylvania
Re: Not really getting why the line about mistakes is a big deal
Nice catch. Researched it and you are correct.

munchybotaz
I have to give credit to birthgoddess
who posted elsewhere that a similar quote was attributed to the actor Chace Crawford. That's what got me googling. Anyway, a "Gossip Girl" guy also said it before Crookfork did. :)

Nightingale
Re: I have to give credit to birthgoddess
Maybe they will give attribution in the written version of the talk. :)

Words are crucial. Words are vital. Words should be treated with respect.

I remember my trying-to-be-"TBM" days when I freaked out because they changed the wording in my PB. If it came from God's lips to the patriarch's ears, I asked when I later received my written copy, how come the patriarch's wife changed the wording substantially when she transcribed the recording, instead of just typing the words her husband had used while giving me the blessing. The RM new member class teachers, the missionaries who had been present at the PB, and the patriarch, who was questioned by one of the new member class teachers, all reacted as if I was completely round the bend when I got upset and was querying it - like they were used to PBs needing to be edited or like they thought that editing was no big deal - so once again, I was the source of the problem, not them for making promises and claims they could not fulfil.

That is one of the primary sources of the clashes between Mormons and ex-members and other non-Mormons - Mormon leaders and hence members make false claims, then blame questioners for not maintaining the illusion of The Naked Emperor. Even when you sense or see or feel that there's an issue and even if it's obvious to the naked eye, you're supposed to act like "all is well in Zion", even if everybody knows it is not and know that you all know that it is not.

If they didn't tell me in the first place that a PB was a direct message from God, especially for me, I wouldn't have been so shocked and disappointed that they edited the thing. Just their bad luck that I have a good ear for language, so could remember in detail what the patriarch had "dictated" as he received NG's big-deal message from the Lips of God Himself, and plus I do transcription work, so know all about editing dictation, for grammar and for meaning. The patriarch's wife edited for MEANING. Why would that be necessary if the source of the message was divine? And the patriarch stumbled over a well known adage that was used in my PB, and just could not get the wording right (he had a senior moment right in the middle of my PB, lol) which was amazingly cleared up in the final typed version. I know now that I was beyond gullible for believing in such "magic" as a PB being direct from God, but at the time I did believe. My bad. So blame me for being literal - that when they made a claim I took it to heart. And the patriarch included my favourite Mormon scripture in my PB, a very faith-promoting move. One of the missionaries with me at the time of my PB, who I had become very friendly with (just friends) said he "nearly fell out of my chair" when the patriarch mouthed those words (because "my" mish knew my fave scripture - "Men are that they might have joy"). Me too with the falling out of my chair bit. Of all my Mormon moments, that was the one that caused me to truly believe that I was doing the right thing, in the right place, by having joined the Mormon Church, despite misgivings and warnings and judgements from my Christian friends who didn't consider Mormonism to be Christian (as we know). I thought the inclusion of that scripture was an extra special message from God just for me. What a dope.

I later realized that one of the RM new member class teachers who was a family friend of the patriarch's had whispered in the patriarch's ear, as he too knew my favourite scripture - we had talked about it in new member classes, where I was the only member and two RMs, brothers (and friends with the patriarch) were the teachers. I'm positive now that that is what happened. Why can't they just admit that the patriarch gathers info about the new member before he gives the PB? Why pretend it's all divine inspiration? That is a Big Fat LIE. I threw my PB under my bed one day. As far as I know, that is where it still moulders. To dust it shall return, and all that.

An exmo friend said that maybe they didn't LIE about it. Or didn't consider what they did a lie. That helped me - to think it wasn't a lie. Because that episode hurt me deeply. It would be good to think it was just SOP or one of those FUBAR things, not a deliberate deception. Who will ever know for sure?

In the case of Uchtdorf, all he had to do was preface his remark with an "it has been said that...", not even giving direct attribution but just indicating that his statement wasn't of his own creation. Maybe he didn't even know, if he wasn't the author of his own talk. But to use those words that are clearly lifted in their entirety from another known source and to have TBM listeners swooning over his wisdom and the inspiration they felt from listening to his talk is a word crime of the first order.

Unfortunately, some members will be "inspired" now for another six months to keep on keeping on in the Mormon way of callings, meetings, childbearing, tithing, til they limp exhausted into yet another GC, longing for another divine message to get them infused with excitement and energy for yet another six months of hard slog in the world of Mormonism.

We get roundly criticized for being critical of the Mormon Church. Prophets are only human, leaders and members make mistakes, they (finally) admit, seeking to offset our critiques. But it's THEY who make the unsupportable claims and THEY who criticize members and non-members alike for questioning why their claims don't come true.

Just don't say the talks are "inspired" or the GAs or prophets or patriarchs are "speaking for God" or that (some of) the articles in the Ensign are "scripture" and then they wouldn't be misleading people.

Simple enough, you'd think.

(OK, I am going to quit editing this thing now. It's way past bedtime for all good little girls and boys - as somebody somewhere once said - lol).

imaworkinonit
I'd be willing to bet every exmo with TMB works got some variation of
"Did you watch conference?" comment with their stupid, silly grin on their faces. When are TBMS going to realize that we have as much interest in what their leaders have to say as they have in what the Jehovah Witnesses have to say?

badseed
It's a spin on the ol favorite....
Good cop, 14 bad cops. Doesn't quite have the same effect though huh?.

Somewhere in Uchtdorf's comments is always the message that all the sugar coating and weak concessions are meant to mask. In this case its "doubt your doubts, not your faith." Ridiculous. In that one statement he tips his hand. His comments are an improvement but he really doesn't get how messed up the LDS position is. I mean, in his position, how could he?

munchybotaz
I can relate
I'd have been 'round the bend myself, if I'd had a PB and it was edited for meaning.

I'm a word person--one who, until recently, had a career that involved a lot of writing, where you can get sued if someone else thinks you've ripped off their ideas or their words. It's called intellectual property.

Goofstork's career isn't that different, in my mind. Never mind that his words are supposed to come from God; he makes money off of them, and they need to be his. Or else credited to the source.

Bosworth put his words in a book, too, phrased even more closely to the way Snoopshark repeated them:

Whoever's still making money off of this book should sue Peter Poopsnort and his employer for copyright infringement. They probably wouldn't succeed, but I'd like to see them try anyway.

visiting
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...
--"He also said to doubt your doubts, not your faith."

Translation: Doubt yourself, not your leaders.

Makurosu
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...
Of course there's "always room for them." All tithing money is green.
quinlansolo
Re: Uchtdork? I didn't think you spoke German Steve....
You do well, I see....
Man...When are you going to quit driving masses away from Lord's Church? I think your parents still hold that small hope that you might repent..........
Catholic Pope is a realist...Deep down he realizes this Magic business cannot hold water.
Serves them right....Assholes, they cannot repay damage caused for 2 thousand years.
breedumyung
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdorf to me at work today ...
I'll go back to church when the GAs take off those silly blue suits and wear robes or something.

I just could never equate spirituality with a suit and tie...

montanaexmo
Re: A friend of mine mentioned Uchtdork to me at work today ...
A comment on the importance of words. One of the remarkable things about the appearance of the net and then RfM is the way we get to thoughtfully and carefully work over with each other the meaning of words used by tscc and its leaders. Thank you Steve, nightingale, munchybotaz and all of the rest of you for continuing to post. Your insights and entertainment value are a big part of what keeps me reading this board. For those of us who have spent an entire career writing and dealing with the language, the words used by the tscc leadership are critical. That they would openly plagiarize is disgusting, though not surprising given that tscc is founded on a couple of fictional works that they try to pass off as authentic translations by a pedophile. Their speech writers need to be punished by being required to attend a semester long class at the U of U on ethics in writing and they need to learn how to proof read and question when something is obviously too catchy to be the original work of some employee at COB. Uchdorf: if you are reading this shame on you. You are a really awful example of honesty and integrity. I would have expected more from a man of god.

One final thought as I sit here sipping my delicious "Jack Mormon" brand of coffee and viewing this morning's dose of RfM: I love the way the posters on RfM can take a name or a word and work it over. The variations of Uchdorf's name are seriously wicked, good entertainment.

NormaRae
What I think is funny....
...is just the whole "doubt your doubts" thing. Don't they realize that many of us are here BECAUSE we doubted our doubts?

When I first read about the different version of the first vision, I highly doubted it. I figured it was just someone taking things out of context or making stuff up. BUT, because I doubted, I wanted someone to tell me there was no substance to it. THAT is when I started looking at the apologetics. What did I find? No one said it was made up, they just gave extremely lame "explanations" for it.

The more I read things (because I was doubting my doubts), the more I started doubting my faith.

"Joseph really told the same story, but emphasized different parts depending on his audience." Um, no he didn't.

"The versions don't contradict each other, they compliment each other." Excuse me? They totally contradict each other.

And of course, the deeper you get into the web, the more links you start clicking on. Priesthood restoration, Book of Mormon historocity, Kinderhook plates, Book of Abraham, Masonic ripoff of the temple ceremony, Kirtland banking scandal, polygamy/polyandry, the so-called witnesses to the BOM, everything you wanted to doubt is trumped by facts.

Yeah, go ahead Udork. Tell people to doubt their doubts. Send doubting people to the apologetic sites. It will just build the RFM ranks of people like us who went there and finally said, "Really? That's the best you got? Damn. It IS a fraud."